Continuous Jeopardy

Seven former directors of the CIA have publicly asked Barack Obama to rein in Eric Holder’s witch hunt against the CIA. They have several very good reasons as to why this whole thing should be stopped – right now – but this is one that most people will understand right away: this is digging old dirt in hopes of finding a new nugget.

The post-September 11 interrogations for which the Attorney General is opening an inquiry were investigated four years ago by career prosecutors. The CIA, at its own initiative, forwarded fewer than 20 instances where Agency officers appeared to have acted beyond their existing legal authorities. Career prosecutors under the supervision of the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia determined that one prosecution (of a CIA contractor) was warranted. A conviction was later obtained. They determined that prosecutions were not warranted in the other cases. In a number of these cases the CIA subsequently took administrative disciplinary steps against the individuals involved. Attorney General Holder’s decision to re-open the criminal investigation creates an atmosphere of continuous jeopardy for those whose cases the Department of Justice had previously declined to prosecute.

Holder has said not a single word about investigating the operators of a Child-Whoring Pimp Assistance Program, ACORN. Apparently, all of his time is absorbed in trying to punish people who were trying to operate within what they were told was the legal envelope for their actions.

The excuse offered by ACORN’s remaining defenders is essentially this: Sure, the tapes are reprehensible, but otherwise, ACORN does good work in poor communities. This excuse is unconvincing when used by defenders of the terrorist group Hamas and it’s unconvincing here. Americans can no longer allow Washington to turn a blind eye – much less fund – an organization that uses the suffering of our most vulnerable citizens as a cover for its illegal and illicit activities.

Why is Holder silent on ACORN but ‘way bullish on low-level CIA people who thought they were following binding legal advice?

Anyone doubt this is about who ACORN supports? Anyone? Anyone? Holder?